On conservative and libertarian stupidity

[Mr. Perfect]

Some good brains at work here, but I put it in this thread nevertheless because it was a missed opportunity. Ayn Rand enthusiasts always have the same deficiency: they are unable to make their case.

How so.

True libertarians not being able to make their case and only repetitively throw their messianic "deregulation" into the air waves are the greatest threat to individual freedom.

Libertarion/Randites yearn for the US Constitution as it was before the Federal Reserve.

It worked great.

[Parodite]

Some good brains at work here, but I put it in this thread nevertheless because it was a missed opportunity. Ayn Rand enthusiasts always have the same deficiency: they are unable to make their case.

How so.

True libertarians not being able to make their case and only repetitively throw their messianic "deregulation" into the air waves are the greatest threat to individual freedom.

Libertarion/Randites yearn for the US Constitution as it was before the Federal Reserve.

It worked great.

Deregulation is a hoax, it doesn't exist. Changing regulation does exist however. Grizzly Adams has no government regulation his behavior, but nature pulls all the regulating strings that constrain and shape his actions. A "self-regulating" free market with property rights is in part created by government regulations creating that space with law and law enforcement protecting the playing field, and within that space behavior is regulated by a plethora of forces and variables. Libertarians who just blab deregulation are pulling a bag over your head.

[Mr. Perfect]

Deregulation is a hoax, it doesn't exist.

Trump just did one of the largest de regulations we know about.

Changing regulation does exist however. Grizzly Adams has no government regulation his behavior, but nature pulls all the regulating strings that constrain and shape his actions.

Right. Natural laws vs man made artificial laws. The whole point of libertarianism is to get government to follow natural laws.

You are arguing for libertarian values.

eZRWWj6XtsU

Libertarianism isn't anarchism.

A "self-regulating" free market with property rights is in part created by government regulations creating that space with law and law enforcement protecting the playing field, and within that space behavior is regulated by a plethora of forces and variables. Libertarians who just blab deregulation are pulling a bag over your head.

No, self regulation has become a term of abuse, which is unfortunate because it's original meaning has been lost. Self regulating markets specifically applied to things like interest rates, margin requirements and savings rates. The premise is quite simply that there are natural forces for and against low or high interest rates, margin rates and savings rates. As such the market would find an equilibrium through a complex discovery process and there is no argument that the government or a regulator could come up with anything better.

It became synonymous with there is no incentive for people to do bad things, which is obviously stupid. But the original definition remains and is completely valid.

I think about 75% of US government should be eliminated or privatized, about 85% of European government should be privatized, the EU should be eliminated and I am not pulling a bag over anyone's head.

That's a whole lotta deregulating.

[Parodite]

I don't disagree with the change of regulations you like, such as abolishing the fed and the EU. My point is more general though: let's stop using the word deregulation. It is deceptive.

A good word for changing regulations is regulation reform. I will also say that our ever changing reality justifies a regular audit of existing regulations that will need reform on a regular but infrequent basis. Small adaptations, sometimes more bigly.

Sometimes kill off expired regulations without adding new ones, sometimes replace or add. Just normal maintenance to keep the free market, wealth generation and individual rights and responsibilities in healthy shape, keeping the Ship of Freedom afloat.

Improve the yacht making it faster and safer. With a crew better trained. More action with less central government, lowest possible taxation, a fleet of agile small to mid-sized boats competing. With crews not looking at outdated maps and old weather patterns, but reading the map of today and try see what is coming. Buzzword wisdom won't do. You will crash on the rocks while the commies take over.

I agree that as much as possible needs to be left to nature and its regulatory powers. Key word here is decentralization. But human societies always create social-political regulations. They are as much nature as the weather. Social mammals survive and thrive through internal regulations many of which are hardwired in their DNA. Humans are not different.

From family, tribe, extended tribe.. to nation state and empire. Scaling up thanks to new tools and techniques available. Armies, conquest. The same wars but on bigger scales. Consolidation of new borders. Trying peace with your neighbors. Co-operate and compete economically instead of with weaponry. From gun to plow.

Free association means new alliances, i.e. competing teams. From only one tribal identity to having many hats available to wear and clubs to be a member of. Or just stay home and keep it simple. All that is nature still.

You can think of the US gvt as too big and the principled enemy of individual freedom, but there is nothing unnatural about it. The Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, The Fed, the EU... pure nature! As it is pure nature to fight such monsters when they inflict pain on you. What hurts is your enemy. It might just be a predator who sees in you a nice snack to be followed by a peaceful afternoon nap.

The free market will not eliminate hungry sharks nor governments who let the sharks hunt and bring them some nice loot. Business people and politicians also love to freely associate and have oligarchic orgies. All nature. Usually the winners set the rules.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Why not simply eliminate incorporation? That is a voluntary submission to governmental control.

Incorporation is an avoidance of personal responsibility and accountability, and a primary reason for regulation in the first place.

[noddy]

unfortunately you cant eliminate incorporation because its a social phenomena as much as a legal one.

at the start things are seperate, business and government, however if that business thrives for long enough to become an important part of the local economy, its relationship to government changes.

people get to know each other, winks and nudges are exchanged, maybe some favours.

then the risks of increased unemployement or decreases in taxes become real issues for the government so they protect that business.

this process barely requires legal framework and happens naturally, next thing you know they are sweeping crimes under the carpet for the good of the magority and protecting the image of all concerned

how to keep capitalism, proper competitive, john stuart mills free market is a very interesting problem. knee jerk reactions after the fact seem to be the only solution - breaking up the mega corp into sub corps.

[Mr. Perfect]

Corporations are your greatest protections against government. I consider them sacred, like the scriptures. I would give my life to preserve the corporation. It's almost all we have left.

[Mr. Perfect]

I don't disagree with the change of regulations you like, such as abolishing the fed and the EU. My point is more general though: let's stop using the word deregulation. It is deceptive.

I like deregulation as a word. It's very straightforward.

A good word for changing regulations is regulation reform.

I don't like that word. I think it's deceptive.

I will also say that our ever changing reality justifies a regular audit of existing regulations that will need reform on a regular but infrequent basis. Small adaptations, sometimes more bigly.

Sometimes kill off expired regulations without adding new ones, sometimes replace or add. Just normal maintenance to keep the free market, wealth generation and individual rights and responsibilities in healthy shape, keeping the Ship of Freedom afloat.

I call that deregulation.

Improve the yacht making it faster and safer. With a crew better trained. More action with less central government, lowest possible taxation, a fleet of agile small to mid-sized boats competing. With crews not looking at outdated maps and old weather patterns, but reading the map of today and try see what is coming. Buzzword wisdom won't do. You will crash on the rocks while the commies take over.

I agree that as much as possible needs to be left to nature and its regulatory powers. Key word here is decentralization. But human societies always create social-political regulations.

The bad ones do, yes.

They are as much nature as the weather. Social mammals survive and thrive through internal regulations many of which are hardwired in their DNA. Humans are not different.

From family, tribe, extended tribe.. to nation state and empire. Scaling up thanks to new tools and techniques available. Armies, conquest. The same wars but on bigger scales. Consolidation of new borders. Trying peace with your neighbors. Co-operate and compete economically instead of with weaponry. From gun to plow.

Free association means new alliances, i.e. competing teams. From only one tribal identity to having many hats available to wear and clubs to be a member of. Or just stay home and keep it simple. All that is nature still.

You can think of the US gvt as too big and the principled enemy of individual freedom, but there is nothing unnatural about it. The Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, The Fed, the EU... pure nature! As it is pure nature to fight such monsters when they inflict pain on you. What hurts is your enemy. It might just be a predator who sees in you a nice snack to be followed by a peaceful afternoon nap.

The free market will not eliminate hungry sharks nor governments who let the sharks hunt and bring them some nice loot. Business people and politicians also love to freely associate and have oligarchic orgies. All nature. Usually the winners set the rules.

Natural, vs unnatural. An old tar pit that has claimed many.

Some say gay sex is natural because it occurs in nature. Animals other than people do gay sex. So, therefore it is natural, and by inference, it is "good".

But murder is natural too. Murder occurs in nature. That would make murder "good" by this standard.

So nature malfunctions. But I have this idea that just because nature malfunctions, malfunctions are not good. The purpose of this life is to reject that which is deleterious (Rome, murder, possible gay sex) and embrace that which bears fruit.

You will see this goes back to the fallen world/sin/temptation/good vs evil Biblical world view.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Umm, the Bible is extremely pro-regulation. It also explicitly spells out thought crimes.

[Mr. Perfect]

God regulation, not man made. I would never equate the two, in any way.

Also, the nature of regulation changed with the life and mission of Jesus Christ.

[Mr. Perfect]

unfortunately you cant eliminate incorporation because its a social phenomena as much as a legal one.

at the start things are seperate, business and government, however if that business thrives for long enough to become an important part of the local economy, its relationship to government changes.

people get to know each other, winks and nudges are exchanged, maybe some favours.

then the risks of increased unemployement or decreases in taxes become real issues for the government so they protect that business.

This process is due to "wealth" and "businesses". You have stated correctly, if you got rid of corporations as a legal artifice this would still continue.

this process barely requires legal framework and happens naturally, next thing you know they are sweeping crimes under the carpet for the good of the magority and protecting the image of all concerned

Yep.

how to keep capitalism, proper competitive, john stuart mills free market is a very interesting problem. knee jerk reactions after the fact seem to be the only solution - breaking up the mega corp into sub corps.

Nobody even wants to do that.

[noddy]

Google stands out as maybe needing a bit of loving in that regard.

they own 90% of the platform via android.

this turns into 90% of the core internet services, like search, mapping and advertising.

and then they also own some of the big media providers, like youtube, which come first in their searching.

in comparison, microsoft was only ever allowed to own the platform and some of the services (like office software)

[Nonc Hilaire]

Incorporation allows the beneficial owners to evade responsibility for their actions, which destroys the feedback loops for open market principles. Regulation is a limited and convoluted method of artificially restoring those feedback loops.

No incorporation would allow freedom regulation, and an open market must be regulated if incorporation is allowed or the economy would collapse under moral hazard.

[Mr. Perfect]

Incorporation allows the beneficial owners to evade responsibility for their actions,

No it doesn't. If you incorporated tomorrow I swear you would not be able to commit any crimes.

Under the law a corporation only clarifies that if you commit the crime your shareholders aren't liable beyond the value of their investment.

which destroys the feedback loops for open market principles. Regulation is a limited and convoluted method of artificially restoring those feedback loops.

Corporations go out of business or suffer downturns all the time. The market will always work in the end.

No incorporation would allow freedom regulation, and an open market must be regulated if incorporation is allowed or the economy would collapse under moral hazard.

Corporations allow people to go into business together. Nothing helps free markets better than letting people go into business with each other.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Look at Monsanto. Gave a guy cancer and no punishment for the people who did it. Just corporate fines.

People can go into business together anytime. Partnerships. Full liability rests on each partner.

Corporations make an open market impossible. Incorporation means capitalism for gains but socialism for losses.

[Mr. Perfect]

Look at Monsanto. Gave a guy cancer and no punishment for the people who did it. Just corporate fines.

You would have to pull up the case. If you started a corporation and gave someone cancer you would be fully responsible.

Also when you pull up that case find the laws that say a corporation can give people cancer.

People can go into business together anytime. Partnerships. Full liability rests on each partner.

Corporations are simply a more efficient version of a partnership.

Corporations make an open market impossible. Incorporation means capitalism for gains but socialism for losses.

Ask someone who has lost money on shares.

[Parodite]

Mr.P., some more rambling on regulation/deregulation. Will try to clarify.

Only stating that we need more deregulation is deceptive because it suggests that regulation is bad. Talking regulation/deregulation requires being specific.

The only reality is that of regulation. Regulating something also means you identify things that will not be regulated. Of many types of course. Like Nonc reminded and you agreed with, also religious moral code is meant to regulate our behavior. The old Judaic bards instructed the people to create courts, rule of law. Or just warn that certain behaviors (sins) will have dire consequences. The friction between rule of law and freedom is very old. Jesus didn't like Pharisees because they put shackles on people with their obsessive rule-mongering; he wanted people to do the right thing freely and from the heart. Not from a fear of law and being punished for a transgression. But in Revelations punishment is inevitable, yet again. In the mean time Hell as a concept also turned out to be effective as a threat that keeps people follow rules.

Just saying that for the time being rule of law and freedom most likely will remain paired as twins and continuously negotiating.

The amounts of different types of regulatory forces in nature is staggering and as complex as nature is rich. Will state though that no matter the regulatory forces at work anywhere, there always is a freedom at work that can never be destroyed because it is fundamental to nature as well. "Even" at the quantum level.

Some regulations we reject, some we embrace because we think they are fundamental requirements to have and keep something we value. The most obvious example is free speech: it needs laws and regulations to protect it. I know that statement is emotionally difficult for some freedom lovers, but it is the truth. A long list can be made of all the goodies that us libertarian/conservatives highly value that in fact need regulations with a bedrock of constitutional law to make them possible. And protect them from being destroyed by a/b/c or d. This is all first principle as opposed to utopia reasoning where regulations are ba-aaaad and deregulation is g-oo-ood.

Why did I say that the biggest threat to our freedoms are libertarians and some libertarian conservatives (my political soul mates) in politics unable to make our case and represent us effectively? Because I consider them the only bodyguards we have. I think his name was Gary Johnson who supposedly represented us in the 2016 elections but he was a joke in every possible way.

I have no illusions whatsoever that left-wing progressive nutcases, or even center leftist democrats have it in them to protect our freedoms. In Europe, my own country too, they are a sell-out to the EU. They are either too stupid and/or simply don't care. They just care about their own political cozy careers.

It is kinda funny to see how in the US the left-wing democrat mob consists in fact of rugged selfish individualists hungry for power and loot like genuine cave people whose trick is pretending to care about others. The level of pretense is frightening and it appears many started to believe in their own righteous nature and empathetic powers. You once identified it as sort of a mental illness, which I think is not far off.

As a side note: the biggest risk for the GOP seems to me that after Trump they regress back to their old lousy habits of being unprincipled moralists(tm), sheep-like passivists and corporate representatives (just like their democrat neo-lib twins) in the face of a left-wing power assault. Maybe the young generation of conservatives/libertarians will do a better job in the future but they have a formidable enemy with decades of experience and training in persuasion and self-deception(!).

Of course as a general statement it is true that most gvts create too many regulations because a gvt is cancerous by nature due to a lack of immediate market competition. Elections are meant to hold politicians accountable and vote them out of office, but it turns out that these monsters have developed a cunning ability to serve their own interests and survival first. The best example is the disastrous war on drugs. Law and law enforcement have an enormous vested interest (understandably, they are also just people with jobs having to pay their bills) in keeping the war on drugs going. I have yet to hear from this army of libertarian-conservative people willing to oppose and change this insanity.

Most waste their time exposing democrat mental illness, but that is old news by now. When Trump is gone the same issues will be on the the table. I see no future for the GOP or libertarians when they keep avoiding the real important stuff and just keep throwing buzzwords in the air like de-regulation-hallelujah without being specific. If deregulation is a goal in and of itself, best would be to have a dictatorship. In China they made this assessment. Beyond a certain complexity and size in a rapidly changing reality, a top-down iron fist is the only rule you need.

Bottom-line: who decides on what regulation/deregulation? It just isn't a very sexy subject.

[Mr. Perfect]

Fantastic post. Don't have time for it right now, until then.

0GVzohuCivE

All written by this guy.

AEjr9WchNkg

[noddy]

I just got hounded on a local forum for daring to suggest not all of lifes problems can be solved with taxes and fines on other people.

libertarians might be stupid but authoritarians are so much more.

[Mr. Perfect]

Yeah. Saying libertarians are stupid should only be responded to with "compared to what".

[Parodite]

I might concoct a recipe for eternal GOP (libertarian-conservative) victory in the US.

[Parodite]

I might concoct a recipe for eternal GOP (libertarian-conservative) victory in the US.

For starters and out of the mad box. Eternal victory puts the bar rather high.

1. The conundrum

The live-let-live libertarian conservative (LC) wants the gvt be as much as possible out of the way. S/he wants to live and let live. It is not natural or a first choice to ring your neighbor's door bell and sell your wonderful political and social LC philosophies. Rather, it is you leave me alone, I leave you alone. The opposite of militant evangelicalism.

Hoping for a libertarian political party to make headway on the US political battle field is like hoping a knitting enthusiast will survive a first round against Mike Tyson.

The pure breed libertarian loves free association of course. Agree with like-minded people on things, talk together about Ayn Rand, Hayek, the Australian school of economics and other inspirational sources. Glow with happy agreement. At the same time get depressed about the current state of affairs where various political tribes do cage fighting on social media and in Washington DC. While regressed left-wing activists and their ideological masters at Universities poison the environment with a toxin specifically feared and looked down upon: identity politics and socialism. This is not the best environment for LCs.

There is a reason why secular libertarians and religious conservatives find common ground. Libertarian live-let-live, to leave each other alone where each individual is responsible for his own behavior maybe tastes like indifference and even selfishness, but it is a very good friend and neighbor of the religious conservative who takes it upon himself to love-respect not only his neighbor but even his enemies. For the non-militant religious conservative not bothering your neighbor is sort of a minimum requirement.

The religious conservative is inspired by the Christian gospel to live and let live because he has to give Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. Church-state separation. To live the good life and do good to others like Jesus. To not judge or be judged. To forgive and forget. Like the secular libertarian come together with like-minded people (albeit much more frequently) and glow with happiness in agreement enjoying being embedded in a social fabric and traditional inspirational religious sources. Not much need or urge to convert others either. In terms of politics just communicate values and preferred political policies, vote for people representing them best. Believing and professing that only God's grace will ultimately convert somebody to the good religious life. Take life's imperfections as the default. Aren't we all fallible human beings with the potential for both good and evil?

For convenience I will label the secular libertarian and religious conservative mindset as decent passivism (DP). You can only hope for the best, acknowledge and accept fundamental uncertainty or leave it all to God entirely.

Modesty and humility may be virtues, but they won't produce eternal victory when grounded in passivity.

If you reject passivity the question becomes: how to fight? Do something that feels very unnatural and unpleasant. With a serious skepticism that aggressive fighting will do any good. It easily deteriorates into a nasty fight for mere power evoking all the lesser human qualities. It might bring out the worst in you. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

All the cues are there to safely keep you in the decent passivist fold of libertarian conservatism. Without eternal victory.

2. How to fight

tbc

[crashtech66]

Interesting read, Parodite, yet, in my experience, many religious conservatives who are politically active see it as a mandate to have government impose their morality upon everyone. That's as far from libertarian as it gets. It's partly due to these busybody conservatives having been ascendant in the GOP that I still don't fully embrace it. The kind, gentle folk you describe might be a majority if not whipped along by a more vocal minority, just like many other groups,of course.

[Simple Minded]

Interesting read, Parodite, yet, in my experience, many religious conservatives who are politically active see it as a mandate to have government impose their morality upon everyone. That's as far from libertarian as it gets. It's partly due to these busybody conservatives having been ascendant in the GOP that I still don't fully embrace it. The kind, gentle folk you describe might be a majority if not whipped along by a more vocal minority, just like many other groups,of course.

True enough. IIRC, when Neal Boortz was on the air, he often mentioned that if Republicans could learn to not talk about abortion, their membership roles might increase significantly.

But when people think they are on a mission from God, they start thinking that their special thinking should be adopted by everyone. The "We're special agents of God" herd has a tough time becoming "the big tent" herd.

noddy nailed it long ago with one word, indifference.

[Parodite]

Interesting read, Parodite, yet, in my experience, many religious conservatives who are politically active see it as a mandate to have government impose their morality upon everyone. That's as far from libertarian as it gets. It's partly due to these busybody conservatives having been ascendant in the GOP that I still don't fully embrace it. The kind, gentle folk you describe might be a majority if not whipped along by a more vocal minority, just like many other groups,of course.

I think so too. The silent majority of people are moderate, decent democrats and republicans. A minority of vocal fanatics make most of the noise in the room and the closer you get to the places of vacant power it all becomes a frenzied pack of piranhas. The USA in a two-party stranglehold doesn't help either.

As for the busybody conservatives who love to have their unprincipled moralist (tm) eyes and fingers in other peoples bedrooms and want to keep gay marriage illegal for instance... I wonder if there are any statistics how many there still are. It feels like this group is getting smaller and that the decent live-let-live conservative is becoming mainstream among repubs. On the other hand, the illiberal left-wing mob seems to be growing.